ALL BLACKS VS MANU SAMOA

In any game there are standard plays that a team performs so that all team members act in a coordinated way so that there is little hesitation when support for the ball carrier is needed or, in defence, support for the tackler.

In this game, with the potential for temperature induced fatigue being high, the All Blacks played field position rugby and used the pressure from possession and field position, along with patience, to exert pressure on Samoa.

Pressure should lead to points and in this situation the keenness of the Samoan “rush” defence, as well as infringements at the post tackle led to penalties. This is not to say that the All Blacks conceded any more penalties than Samoa but the Samoan ones, as a consequence of the All Back’s attacking pattern, were within kicking range.

This not only allowed them to control the pace of the game but, by taking the kick at goal, the aim was to build a lead and create anxiety in Manu Samoa as they would ultimately have to play catch-up rugby. At the very least the All Blacks would not have to play catch up.

What helped came from Samoa’s kick offs after each score. Once the ball was secured with time available for the kicker, the ball was kicked down the near touchline with a strong chase pattern exerting pressure.

This is a standard play and usually one in which the wing on that side of the field and the #8 catch to regain possession of the ball and play options from there.

In this situation the ball was not fielded cleanly and, as the number of “box” kicks continued, Samoa compounded the problem by leaving it to their fullback. This was a miss-match as the chasers were taller and bigger men than the Samoa #15.

The consequence of this was, having scored, the All Blacks, in the first half, had both possession and field position.

We now have to ask ourselves why, given this dominance, only one try was scored and the overall number of points quite modest.

Prior to the game the All Blacks would have been aware of the Samoan’s rush defence. I did think that the referee could have been aware of the marginally late tackles on the passer. The commentators did say that it prevented the passer from supporting but injury especially to Carter could well have been a consequence.

The kicking option was used, I think 3 times, and, with a little more height so the ball as dropping on the wing and not moving away from him, the return could have been greater.

I do think that using the boot is a way of making the defence more hesitant. The grubber kick could be used, especially from set pieces when there is not a picket fence of opposing team shins in the stacked defence lines we see from phase play.

But this option was not available because the attack line was standing too flat and received the ball with little way on. As a result the attack was in insufficient motion to threaten the defence. The second reason was that the defence was able to stand close to each other as the attack was standing close.

As a result the defence could come up as a unit and, if the ball carrier could change direction, another defender was close enough to shut things down.

So why didn’t the attack line especially from scrum and line-out stand further apart taking a straight running line, isolating each defender thus creating space for the grubber or evasive running. They may have done this in the hope that they could get the ball beyond defenders to space on the outside. In its execution this didn’t work.

As old fashioned as it is I am beginning to think that what goes around, comes around, and we may see the “extra man” coming out of the shadow of the play maker, as late as possible, into this space to penetrate. Remember John Gallagher who came, not only from behind Warwick or Joe but also from behind Craig Greene or John Kirwan on an outside in line.

I was surprised the reaction, or should I say the action, as the Samoan defence was predictable, was not more effective.

But credit to Samoa they closed down the space and made the attack aware of their presence. More about Samoa’s defence in a moment.

What about the All Blacks attack from phase play?

The pattern is a well versed one now with the forwards being in pods and, once the ball has moved beyond the pod they reload so they can move into the ball as it is passed back. In addition to creating greater numbers around the ball it saved energy. The flaw in this is the assumption that the ball being passed east-west tires the defence out when, all they have to do is do as the attack does and reload so they can move into their tackle when the ball comes back the other way.

In both attack and defence if they don’t reload so they can move into play they lose out as either their running onto the ball or their movement into the tackle lacks momentum.

They could have followed the policy Duncan Laing, that great Varsity “A” rugby and Danion Loader’s swim coach, of “do unto others as they are doing unto you”.

Especially with the Highlanders and Hurricanes and also with the Chiefs, we have seen linear support being used and, what were previously looked on as “50/50” passes, the infamous post game captain’s quote:

“We didn’t make the last pass.”

For some reason these teams delayed the loss of possession at the last pass, sometimes it didn’t occur at all as the ball was placed over the goal line. The reason for this being more successful is the willingness of the support to be “up the ball carrier’s arse” and there in numbers so that the ball carrier could make the pass with confidence and the support would be there in greater and greater numbers because they knew they would be used.

If you have a number of players in the channel and the pass results in a turnover you have players in the line of the ball, the transition from attack to defence should be immediate, and any hope of a counter attack can be snuffed out.

The Samoan example was more “pick and go” although offloads were made. The key point seemed to be that the immediate Samoan support player, sensing he might have to slow down to catch or pick-up the ball, created space for the next player by driving way threats from the channel of play.

This is the now famous linear support I have been pushing the envelope with for many years. Like a lot of these ideas, I have had to convince myself of their worth to keep pushing given the meagre uptake.

Samoa must take this concept and build on it as it is hard to defend and draws the defence in. If a try is not scored linear support, at the very least, creates lateral space and the ball can be moved wide to that space to continue forward momentum.

The All Blacks had trouble defending this. This is where field position pays off, as too often Samoa had to mount their linear support attack too far from the goal line.

I did think that upper body tackles caused the All Blacks to commit more than the tackler and sometimes more than 2 to get the job done. The reason was that the tackle didn’t remove the ball carrier’s legs and he just drove on. If they can rely on the legs being removed by a single defender then the next player can jackal. If the tackler looks on the complete tackle as the tackle plus to his feet and, using the Law that doesn’t require him to come through the gate, also have a go at the ball, the reward could be greater.

I remember a well-known Super 15 coach talking to me about Jack Lam. The quote was:

“He doesn’t spin my wheels.”

Well he spins mine as his play, along with Manu 6,8, 12 and 13, jackal to regain possession of the ball. Bloody brilliant. Looking at the build of the team more could join then in this skill. But what was of concern to the All Backs should be Samoa arriving first and being too strong to roll out.

The Manu defence worked well based on the points I have made earlier but, given the efficiency of their rush defence pattern, is it time for them to try other options to catch the opposition napping.

If the attack becomes so conscious of them they are just catching and passing while drifting side ways, inside out defence can be used to usher them across the field and “gang” tackle the isolated last receiver.

If the attack is conscious of the big hit coming from straight ahead, as it is now, try outside in defence in the same way that Conrad Smith orchestrated the Hurricane’s defence in the Super 12 final. This allows 12 to take the first receiver from his blind side and 13 to take the second receiver from his.

From phase play the 3 options can also be used although you are more likely to get straight running from hit ups so inside out may be less productive.

What you can do from phase play, because defensive numbers often exceed attacking, is allow a straight or outside in defender to leave the line to make the tackle, as others are there to cover if the tackle is missed.

Looking back on the game it was won because possession and field position were conceded by Samoa at the kick-offs and secondly, by an understandable lack of confidence in the early stages of the game by Samoa. By the end of the game they could easily be saying:

“They are not that good.”

“We are pretty good.”

“We wish this was a test series.”

“Semi-finals at the RWC.”

Lastly, know you pattern Samoa and play to it. How you played suits you and you are capable of imposing it on the best. Just do it earlier and keep it going longer.

As far as some members of the All Blacks are concerned, rustiness is not an excuse and don’t look sideways as the Super 15 finalists are arriving and the heat is on.

 

SUPER 15 FINAL: THE HURRICANES VS THE HIGHLANDERS

Let’s start with a broad generalization and say that the Hurricanes thought that more of the same was all they needed to win the game.

Highlanders’ Pattern of Play

The Highlanders at one stage in the season seemed to be going down the same road. The turning point for them was the Invercargill game against the Chiefs. The guts of their win there was in getting points ahead, with some adventure but once ahead they played to win.

The priority became field position with a good chase pattern and an equally good receipt pattern in case there was a return kick. Once they had field position they could commit to regaining possession by having a good crack at the ball. Not entirely with impunity but they could tempt the ref’s whistle with the consequence being a lineout. And, as we saw in the final, doing your homework at the lineout makes their throw in less than a forgone conclusion.

Add to field position and possession, pace and you have the initial ingredients of a win.

The best example of this was the delay by the Highlanders when they were positioning for the drop goal. The Hurricanes couldn’t risk getting offside but the longer the Highlanders kept the ball the more the clock did its job.

Now add patience to remain in control of the ball and you begin to force the opposition to play catch up rugby beyond their skill set.

This is not to say that the Hurricanes didn’t have the skill set, they have shown it in spades during the season.

But, in a game like this, it is small margins that make all the difference.

Reloading

The most common of these when you are playing gain line rugby is the ability to reload in both attack and defence.

By this I mean, given that the gain line is now the tackle line, that the team that gains an advantage in attack and defence over the gain line creates momentum in attack to eventually penetrate and the start of a dominant tackle in defence, from which possession can be regained.

Both teams were guilty of not reloading every time but the Hurricanes more than the Highlanders.

What do I mean by reloading? Quite simply it is the discipline to re-align far enough back in sufficient time to move forward when the ball is out. As you would appreciate this occurs in phase plays that far outweigh the number of set pieces, highlighting the importance of reloading.

In attack it means the players are moving into the pass at pace threatening the defence with power, speed and evasion.

In defence it is moving into the tackle. From phase play it is 2-4 metres behind the offside line. To be on the offside line puts the tackler at a disadvantage as to move forward means they are offside. If they want to avoid this they have to hold their ground, remaining stationary, conceding momentum to the attack. The trap the defence can fall into is just retreating to the hindmost foot once the attack has gained some metres over the gain line.

So while this didn’t happen all the time the Highlanders were able to move into the tackle from phase play inside the Hurricanes’ half building on field position.

Hurricanes Kicking Game?

Add to this the reluctance of the Hurricanes to kick for field position or work their way into a position where they would have created space to kick into and the problem is compounded. As a result they were trying to score from too far out. And when your kicker misses penalties that would have kept you in touch and you are in trouble.

Hurricanes’ Support Play

I mentioned that it was a game of small margins and the Hurricanes support play fell into a small trap.

All season they had been able to make “50/50” passes, the ones that lead to turnovers in most teams. But in the Hurricanes’ case they made a breakthrough. The ball carrier will not make a pass if there is no support and the support will not be in position if he thinks a pass will not be made. Even being in position is not enough if the support player is looking to form a ruck and not to receive a pass is enough to make a difference.

Presumably encouraged by their coaching staff and leaders the Hurricanes gave it a go. Confidence built on confidence leading to more passes being made and more passes, in another team a risky pass, were being caught.

The passes were not always easy to catch but the outlook seemed to be “there is no such thing as a poor pass, it is your responsibility to catch it”. It would be interesting to watch a Hurricanes practice to see how this confidence was built.

But in this game there was a flaw. It occurred when the ball was passed to a runner close to the touchline meaning that the only direction for the pass was infield.

Like all teams from phase play the Highlanders’ defence shepherded the attack across the field and there were sufficient numbers to contest the infield pass. I think this happened about 5 times, enough to make a difference.

Who would have thought Julian Savea wouldn’t back his pace and get caught front running when the crucial try could have been scored?

Hurricanes’ Defence

Prior to this game the Hurricanes probably used their defence pattern, I didn’t watch closely enough earlier in the season.

What they did in this game was to have the third and fourth defenders coming forward ahead of the first and second to force the attack to play down the close in channels. The aim, especially from phase play is to turn the attack into their big hitters. Being numerically greater from phase play they had the numbers to even force a turnover and exploit this advantage in the transition between defending and attacking. This is something in which the team that has turned the ball over reacts more quickly than their opponents.

They did this from both phase play and the set pieces and it was a surprise early on to see the Highlanders’ attack have to alter their play as the wide out option was cut off.

The Highlanders have used linear support and the offload in their previous games but it is not as firmly ingrained as it is with the Hurricanes. As a result the less risky option of setting up the ruck and using runners off the ruck led to ball retention. As an aim this is very acceptable if you are ahead.

Only on one occasion did the Highlanders kick the ball into the space behind the defenders who were rushing forward. I have always believed these kicks can result in the defence having to hold their line and not rush.

The Hurricanes were forced to do as was being done to them.

Hurricanes’ Kick–Off Receipts:

It is remarkable how often the team that has just scored plays with the ball in their own half, even their own 22m risking a turnover or the intervention of the ref at each contact situation.

Once again it is something that the Hurricanes have been able to do with encouraging success in their previous games.

But in this game it was different.

Usually kick-offs are for territory and not to regain possession. I don’t know why. Maybe what goes around will come around. Maybe Grant Fox and Ian Foster should mention it to make it fashionable again given their accuracy. I think we have the athletes who would be able to contest the ball.

But let’s get back to the kick off for territory. The Highlanders had a well aligned and numerous chase line. This had to be as numerous as the attack line of the Hurricanes otherwise an overlap could be worked and they would have been gone. But the Highlanders could have numbers because it was unlikely that the Hurricanes would kick for field position.

Equally the Highlanders had a sound receipt line if the Hurricanes kicked the ball. Not only was the line sound from the first return kick but, along with a chaser to put those in front on side, they still had the numbers for a second return kick.

Increasingly the Highlanders played for territory.

Highlanders’ Defence and Tackles:

As I said before the Highlanders did try to reload so they could move into their tackles.

Equally they moved forward without hesitation. Other teams against the Hurricanes felt threatened by their attack and didn’t close down their time and space and were busy working out who was going to tackle whom.

Based on having a more numerous defence line the Highlanders were able to charge forward making up their mind as to who would tackle who as they went. The lack of time and space meant the accuracy of the Hurricanes’ attack was eroded. Numbers meant that there were surplus tacklers and if more than one got involved in the tackle so much the better.

Numbers and low tackles allowed only limited use of the maul. Individually the Hurricanes had a go at the line from close in. Maybe a maul would have done the trick?

The key was having the fitness and motivation to keep it going for as long as possible.

When the Hurricanes did break the line there seemed to be plenty of players coming back in scramble defence. Numbers once again led to success.

Conclusion:

Like all top rugby the difference between the winners and the losers is marginal and hinges on a few things none of which occur on many occasions during a game.

Add to this a disciplined game plan designed to expose the few instances and the ability to maintain pressure ready to exploit the opportunity when it occurs.

The team that didn’t have to go searching for points so long as they were committed to this game plan won the game.

Ref Issues:

1. How long has a team got to perform a quick throw in? So long as they don’t commit two players to the line of touch, how much time have they got?
2. If the ref prevents a contest for the ball post tackle he is diminishing the space the attack has to play.
3. When is a post tackle threat a threat? Where do you have to stand to be deemed involved in the post tackle/ ruck? Are players being taken out, when they are not in the play, to just get rid of someone by flattening them and delaying their entry into the ensuing play?

 

THE ALL BLACKS VS THE PUMAS

Too much east – west and not enough north – south.

Don’t “shovel” it on.

Attack – Pass, Run and Support

Given the possession that the All Blacks were able to secure and its retention for long periods of time the points scoring ability of their attack has to be questioned.

If the defence was particularly strong then we could accept the score line but in its performance there were fundamental, attacking errors.

Support lacked depth; in fact players were not backing their speed and were front running in line with or even marginally ahead of the ball carrier. The effect of this is for the passer to rush the pass. If the pass is an offload the pass doesn’t have to travel far but to get it there in time it has to be passed fast and hard. Maybe a gut pass is the answer? It is difficult to cut off.

Frequently the pass forces the receiver to check his pace, reducing his momentum and, because he receives the ball and the tackler at the same time, the receiver can do little with it other than accept the tackle.

The blame for this is not always that of the receiver. Because the pace of the attack is fast the support player is best to run a straight line and come into the space the passer has moved from. The difficulty in this game was that the front line of the attack was drifting with the pass. This means that the support player was running faster than the ball carrier. They could well be on a collision course.

This was aggravated by “skip” passes allowing the missed player’s defender to drift and, because the ball is in the air longer, creating the opportunity to intercept the pass.

If the support player could delay his entry and not be standing in the line, and the ball carrier draws his defender, then the defence will have to decide on their attacker and the free player can penetrate.

More than one support player coming into the space created by the playmaker will overload the channel, draw in the defence and create space across the field. We need depth on the play maker/ ball carrier.

From phase play in particular we have many in the attack line, enough to overload a channel with linear support.

Let’s not forget:

“The space you create is not the space you are running into but the space you are moving away from and the ball carrier must be able to pass into this space.”

This applies to attack from both set pieces and phase play.

Set Piece Attack

Just a thought about the set piece formation.

The formation seems to fall into one of two categories the first is a deliberate pattern before receiving the ball and using the positioning of the defence in response to this. One such pattern is 10, 12 and 13 standing wide and as far from each other as passing will allow. 11, 14 and 15 can stand behind them and enter play late into the space between each of the front line players. The aim is to overload so you have 4 against 2.

The second is to move into position while in motion having stood in a set, decoy position to begin with.

Our Kick Offs:

As far as kicking was concerned it was great to see kick-offs being contested. I hope they persist with this as, right from the re-start, the opposition are forced to contest possession. Unlike the long kick off, which may be good for territory if an error is made and at this level this is unlikely. More often than not a kicking duel results until either team attempts a counter attack.

All they need to do now is take advantage of deflected ball by having all angles around the ball covered.

Just make it higher and shallower, Dan, so we can get there and leap for the ball with impact.

Kicking in General Play:

In general play there was space behind the defence line that was not used. I have gone on about grubber kicks before so I won’t do it again.

Re cross kick passes just be careful that you don’t create the opportunity to counter attack as both teams numbers are down on the extremes of the field.

Defence:

In defence rush defence suffocated the Argentinian attack. When you have more in the defence line than they have in the attack line you can afford to take away their time and space while at the same time not being completely certain who you are tackling. There are enough to compensate for error. If more than one defender makes the tackle this can lead to a dominant tackle and a turnover.

I think I did see the outside defenders getting up early and turning the attack back infield where this rush defence can work well.

A rush defence will not work if we are standing on the offside line, as we are unable to generate pace into the attack from a standing start.

The longer the attack has the ball the more vulnerable we become them having more momentum and us conceding the gain line.

Maul Defence:

There are many ways of defending the maul from stopping them before they start to not participating, which depends on the ref’s interpretation of the situation.

I would like to think we could do enough homework on their lineout to use 2 assisted jumpers in the lineout and the best leaper as a free agent at the tail. The aim is to force the overthrow and to just get something on the ball that erodes their control of the ball. Others are to attack the seam between the ball carrier and the support.

Whatever you do have some variation in the bank to create uncertainty and make sure all are committed to the option called.

Conclusion:

In conclusion the pleasing thing was the priority put on field position, possession and patience while creating anxiety with the pace of the game. Just be careful, don’t think the back and forth movement of the ball results in the fatigue of the defence. The movement of the ball is one thing; the movement of the defensive player within the defence line is another.

Referee/ Law Issues:

1. If the kick-off goes into touch on the full can the ball be immediately thrown in? Can this be between the place it went into touch and the halfway line? Are the options only a re-kick, the scrum on halfway or a lineout on hallway?
2. The sleeping giant is the definition of a ruck and the referee’s intolerance of messiness. The simple solution seems to call “illegal” entry when the “offender” has entered directly behind the ball. This is most prevalent when the ball is moved so that the majority of the players of the team in possession are not where the ball is. The second issue is where there are no longer any defenders involved and the third where there are no players on their feet or those who are, are not bound over the ball. If the Law is applied as written not only will the average punter be mystified.

ALL BLACKS VS SPRINGBOKS 26 JULY 2015

Refereeing Issues:

1. The South African commentators showed their ignorance of the definition of the maul, which requires one member of the defending team to be bound to the shoulder. As a result, when the Springboks bound as a mass but with no commitment by the All Blacks there was no maul. There was no offside, it was general play. The defence can play over the offside line and tackle the ball carrier. If the commentators want a decision those in front of the tail end ball carrier were obstructing and the All Blacks could be awarded a penalty.
2. This could be balanced against Richie McCaw’s try. Seldom is the Law preventing the jumper leaping for the ball before the ball is thrown applied. In this instance it was a decoy as it wasn’t the inaccuracy of the throw that resulted in McCaw catching the ball. I understand that Kaplan made the point that 2 players cannot stand in the halfback position. What he has missed is that players within the lineout can move within the lineout before they jump for the ball, it is a widely used technique and is perfectly legal.
3. Someone standing passively 2-3 metres from the post tackle/ruck is going to be badly injured when an opponent, takes him out, often from his blind-side. Increasingly it is the key players who have to be aware of this as they are being targeted. By my way of thinking this is tackling the player without the ball. Have a look, the tackle is minus the use of the arms but it would seem that because the player is not the ball carrier the arms don’t have to be used. Maybe but it shouldn’t happen in the first place.
4. We all remember Lambie’s game winning penalty last year 5 minutes after Messam’s high tackle during which time the incident was played repeatedly. We also remember the referee’s comment that the kick was so far out it wouldn’t count. It seemed they were doing it again with Messam’s tackle being replayed. What are the protocols for this?
5. Post tackle the intolerance of the need of the player to roll away where the opposition are “innocently” laying on the tackler trapped at the back of the attacking ruck leaves few options. Roll towards their halfback? Roll into the ruck – an unlikely option. So what do you do? The bottom line is to get out of it so fast after the tackle it becomes general play and the defence will outnumber the attack. A poor reward for winning the ball.
6. Before the ruck is formed the standing player can play the ball with his hands. If he does this he retains those rights even if a ruck is formed. But if a ruck forms, 2+1 over the ball, the hands cannot be used. This is split second timing and needs a call every time.
7. Law change for the future – back to the future.

When the ball doesn’t come out of the ruck the put-in to the scrum should go to the team moving forward. This plus not being able to use the hands post tackle will create a contest between 2 loose scrums over the ball.

If there is no forward movement it can go to the team in possession or the team who is in the opposition’s half of the field. What do you think?

All Blacks Set Pieces:

The work done on the Springboks lineout, no doubt motivated as one on the strategies to stop the maul, paid off and will have created a loss in confidence in the Springbok lineout.

All Blacks Defence:

Like all teams the All Blacks’ reaction to the Springboks coming from depth at pace was to hold their line or move marginally forward. Even though the Springboks coming from depth could have meant the All Blacks stopping them before the gain line, their pace and the decoy and passing options meant the gain line was conceded. Their running lines were direct and support ran very good lines into space overloading channels and forcing the defence to make choices. This takes time and concedes space.

In addition to this the Springboks created miss matches wide out where their backs were matched against the All Black tight forwards. In the future they will need to shuffle the forwards closer to the source of possession and move the backs out so like matches like. This takes time so there will be a need to contest the tackled ball to buy this time.

The tackler being directly in front of the ball carrier, resulting in the tackle being above the hips, often on the ball, aggravated this. This enabled the ball carrier to drive on through the tackle with the bound support of teammates.

Maybe the inside out defence taking away the ball carrier’s legs and contesting the tackled ball would be better.

Later in the game as the Springboks lost some of their momentum and the All Blacks regained some composure the outside-in defence turned the attack into the strong tacklers.

In addition, don’t get onto the “dance floor” too soon as, if you have to stand still, because

At altitude the kicks are so long the reloading group to mount a counter attack have a long way back to be in position. Maybe it is better brought forward with the support available close in, form a ruck or maul, and go from there.

All Blacks Attack:

There is still a tendency for the All Blacks to play with the ball in their own half especially after scoring. I feel that, especially at altitude, patience, long kicks and a sound chase and receipt pattern are a better bet against opponents of this standard. Later in the game they shut the game down by playing very good percentage rugby and forcing the Springboks to play catch up.

The All Blacks also deviated from a contestable kick off when altitude will lead to the shallow kick having more height allowing the players contesting the ball to get there.

Maybe this is just to be less predictable.

It may be old fashioned for the halfback to demand ruck ball “on a plate” but it is a bit rough to ask the halfback to pull the ball out and pass without their hovering defenders from launching themselves at him. OK they have to play to a pattern but the pattern won’t be played to of the ball in untidy.

When a player penetrates support can be cut off if it remains lateral as it did in Feketoa’s case. It must get in behind and become linear so that the ball carrier can pass into the space he moves from and into which the support player can run into to receive the pass.

Springboks Defence:

I felt the Springboks did move into their tackles with the same enthusiasm that they run forward on attack. Early in the game the All Blacks were getting hit well before the gain line and the forwards had to go back to the post tackle to get control of the ball.

Having said this later in the game it was realized that the defence beyond the second defender were getting ahead of those inside and it was around Sopoaga and Nonu that the gain line could be won and through this support could penetrate.

MILKING PENALTIES:

With the RWC coming up its difficult to see teams not taking advantage of aspects of the game from which penalties can be “milked” to win games backed by a good goal kicker.

By deliberately infringing within kicking range teams can let the confusion of situations create points scoring opportunities. If the ref goes against you, you concede territory and the throw-in at the lineout but not points.

Those that come to mind are:

1. The scrum laws, which were intended for safety being used to penalize the weaker scrum. Sometimes it is the stronger. There is some luck in this. But the intension is made clear when the team wins the ball, parks it at the No. 8’s feet and waits for the infringement.
2. Rucks that are not rucks by definition.
3. The timing re the use of the hands to recover the ball in the post tackle and the ruck.
4. The defence of the maul. When it is a maul and not a maul by definition.

There are others but these are the main ones and they occur frequently in the game so it is not the number of the type of infringements that are the problem but the total number of each of these.

 

• «Previous Post
• Next Post »

---